What is Batman v Superman about?
Snyder uses two of the most iconic superheroes to explore how individuals and nations respond to trauma. He parallels Bruce Wayne to the United States, and the death of parents to an event like 9/11. How can we have hope when the world seems so hopeless? When you’re fallen, how do you get back up? Can you get back up? Superman serves as a positive example. Someone who, like Bruce, suffers loss and setback and a crisis of faith. But he finds a way through and so becomes a symbol for the rest of us. Batman v Superman also explores ideas of power, grief, government, and faith. Not necessarily faith in a religious sense but in believing in others, in the inherent goodness of others.
Cast
- Clark Kent/Superman – Henry Cavill
- Amy Adams – Lois Lane
- Martha Kent – Diane Lane
- Bruce Wayne/Batman – Ben Affleck
- Alfred Pennyworth – Jeremy Irons
- Diana Prince/Wonder Woman – Gal Gadot
- Lex Luthor – Jesse Eisenberg
- Laurence Fishburne – Perry White
- June Finch – Holly Hunter
- Wallace Keefe – Scoot McNairy
- Anatoli Knyazev – Callan Mulvey
- Mercy Graves – Tao Okamoto
- Doomsday – Robin Atkin Downes
- Written by – Chris Terrio | David S. Goyer
- Directed by – Zack Snyder
Bruce Wayne is the key to understanding Batman v Superman
One of the main techniques in understanding a movie is recognizing parallels between micro and macro subjects. For example, in Apocalypse Now, we see how fighting in the Vietnam War breaks the spirit of dozens of American soldiers, which becomes a larger statement about how the war affected the zeitgeist of the entire country. A similar thing happens in There Will Be Blood with regards to the conflict between an oil man and a preacher. They become symbols for capitalism and religion in America in the 1900s.
Another example would be a story where a newly married couple buys a house and plants a tree. As the tree grows, we see the couple come and go from the house and they’re always happy. A storm passes by and breaks a branch. We see through the window the couple in a huge fight. That establishes that the state of the tree aligns with the state of the relationship. We could not see the couple for the rest of the movie and understand what’s happening to them based on what happens to the tree. If, at the end, someone comes and cuts the tree down, then a for sale sign goes up in the yard, you know their relationship came to an end.
What I described with the tree and the couple is essentially what Batman v Superman does in its two opening scenes with Bruce as a child then reacting to the destruction of Metropolis. I’ll explain further.
The dream that opens the movie has Bruce on the day of the funeral for his parents. Overwhelmed, he runs off. Only to fall through a shaft into a cave full of bats. This cross-cuts between the infamous scene outside the theater, where a robber shoots Thomas and Martha Wayne, in front of young Bruce. As all of that plays out, a voiceover says: There was a time above. A time before. There were perfect things. Diamond absolutes. But things fall, things on Earth. And what falls…is fallen. In the dream, they took me to the light. A beautiful lie.
The voiceover tells much of what we need to know. Things were good. And then they fall apart. While “What falls is fallen” is quite poetic, you can simplify it with something like “What breaks is broken.” The main idea is the change in state, a shift from high to low, from good to bad. With that in mind, you look for dialogue, visuals, or actions that resonate with the idea of falling.
And what do we see? First, it’s Bruce falling into the cave. Then it’s the visual emphasis on Martha’s pearl necklace. When the gun goes off, it breaks the necklace and we watch the pearls scatter, drop, then plummet into the sewer.
The cross-cutting establishes a connection between the loss of Bruce’s parents and his physical descent into the cave full of bats that goes on to inspire his adoption of the Batman persona. He is someone who fell, who is fallen. And the “beautiful lie” is the idea that being Batman somehow allowed him to rise back up. But it didn’t. He is still in the darkness.
That’s our micro subject and overall narrative trajectory for the film. We then shift to the “Mankind is Introduced to the Superman” sequence. We follow adult Bruce Wayne, now. And he drives around Metropolis as Superman’s battle with General Zod causes untold destruction to the city. Whole buildings tumble down. Prior to making BVS, Snyder, during a fan event, estimated the fight resulted in around 5,000 casualties. Buzzfeed actually commissioned a disaster expert, Charles Watson, to run a model and Watson suggested “129,000 known killed, over 250,000 missing (most of whom would have also died), and nearly a million injured.”
That’s the carnage Bruce is looking at. This is where we come back to recognizing parallels between micro and macro. Bruce had his personal trauma. That’s the micro. Immediately after that, we see what happens to Metropolis. That’s the macro, global level. The trauma Bruce experienced scales up to the entire city. The child falling into a mine becomes skyscrapers, full of people, crumbling to the street below. There’s even a shot, near the end, of debris shooting through the air like meteorites. Or pearls. If that seems like a stretch, the dialogue right before that has Bruce ask a child where the girl’s mother is. The girl then points at a torn-in-half skyscraper that’s still on fire. Her mom did not survive.
Part of parallelism is similarity in structure. So Bruce’s dream built to the death of his mom, with the pearl imagery following right after. Then the city sequence builds to Bruce hearing about the death of this girl’s mom, then cuts to the debris in the sky, then the first clear shot of Superman.
So the death of the girl’s mom parallels the death of Bruce’s mom. The debris in the sky parallels the pearls. And then Superman parallels, for Bruce, the idea of the beautiful lie. This “Superman” who is supposed to be good, supposed to help the world, lift the world up, just like the bats did Bruce in his dream. But Bruce doesn’t believe it. It can’t be true. The world is, based on his experience, too dark and awful a place for someone good like Superman to exist. Look at all the destruction this “god” caused already.
And there you have Batman v Superman’s major conceit. Is Batman right and Superman is nothing more than a beautiful lie? Or is Bruce so lost in darkness that he can’t see clearly? Much of Batman v Superman is spent exploring each question, each point of view. But there is another layer.
Batman v Superman is a movie about America post-9/11?
Back in 2020, Zack Snyder did a commentary for VERO True Social while watching BVS: Ultimate Edition. It’s 3 hours and 17 minutes. Zack dishes on a lot of things, from his process to the making of the film to funny stories to thematic intent. At the 22:36 mark, he says: This sequence [Bruce in Metropolis during the Zod fight], of course, is where we were trying to show the sort of post-9/11, what is the world in that, in that world, [editor note: Snyder was a bit distracted so he restarted the thought a couple of times] this kind of imagery, and what it suggests to the collective psychic trauma that occurred from some sort of devastating event. In an attempt to kind of superimpose onto Bruce Wayne’s psyche this vision of destruction that we could connect with because we’ve lived through this other horror.
You shouldn’t need Zack Snyder to confirm the parallel between 9/11 and Superman’s fight with Zod in Metropolis, but, in case you’re the special kind of skeptic who wants evidence, there you have it.
With this in mind, we have to view the government response to Superman/Zod as representing how the U.S. responded to 9/11. Primarily with fear and the notion that security must be ensured, no matter the cost. Lex Luthor becomes the embodiment of that ideology. He’s the one the government turns to. In his first conversation with Senator Finch, Luthor pitches planetary security and uses “defense” as an excuse to create offensive-focused weaponry, something the senator later calls him out for.
Obviously, much has been made about the American government using 9/11 as a justification for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2021, Garrett Graff published an article in The Atlantic called “After 9/11, the U.S. Got Almost Everything Wrong.” The subtitle reads: A mission to rid the world of “terror” and “evil” led America in tragic directions. Government surveillance also became a hot-button issue, codified around the Patriot Act. For example, under Section 215, the government “had been collecting the phone records of every single customer of phone companies including Verizon.”
You could then read the movie as, overall, critical of the U.S. response to 9/11. Saying that the country took a fear-driven approach that put power into the hands of people who had ulterior motives (what we see with Lex). And the result was something destructive in an entirely different way: Doomsday.
But it’s not just an indictment. Snyder, ultimately, positions the film as an exploration of how we respond to tragedy. That’s why he parallels Bruce with Lex. Both react to the threat of Superman based on their own tragic backgrounds. Lex was bullied and had a difficult, distant father he could never please. And Bruce lost his parents. Neither has handled their trauma well. And that informs their individual reactions to Superman. Lex via manipulation of the press and government because he wants power. Bruce via his own vigilante actions because he wants revenge.
Both Lex and Bruce inherited companies from their fathers. Both are insanely wealthy and intelligent. And both focus on the destruction of Superman. We’re supposed to recognize Bruce’s similarities to Lex and how Bruce is becoming more villain than hero. To underscore that point, you have Alfred saying things to Bruce like “That’s how it starts, sir. The fever. The rage. The feeling of powerlessness. It turns good men cruel.” And then the irony when, later Bruce says to Alfred, “How many good guys are left? How many stay that way?” If Bruce kills Superman, he’ll no longer be the good guy. And his attempt to do so shows just how disconnected he is from his humanity.
But Bruce comes around. And Superman ends up as the hopeful figure we’re all used to. Which, to me, points toward Snyder being hopeful about individuals overcoming tragedy but also the country as a whole. We may have a crisis of faith, we might, for a time, lose our way. But, ultimately, we have figures who provide hope. Humanity and decency will, eventually, prevail.
Martha!
A lot of Batman v Superman is spent on what Superman represents. Is he a god? Is he good? Evil? A savior? An enslaver? Is he too powerful to trust? To the government and people like Lex and Bruce, that’s all Superman is—a thing to react to. But to Martha and Lois, Superman is Clark Kent. A son. A loved one. They see his humanity. But no one else could. Or they didn’t want to. And, for a brief bit, Clark even doubts himself.
That’s most evident after the bombing at the hearing.
Clark: I’m afraid I didn’t see it because I wasn’t looking. All this time, I’ve been living my life the way my father saw it. Mending wrongs for a ghost. Thinking I’m here to do good. Superman was never real. It’s just a dream of a farmer from Kansas.
Lois: That farmer’s dream is all some people have. It’s all that gives them hope. [She points to the S on his chest]. This means something.
But this doubt leads to the dark night of the soul where Clark goes to the mountain top and “talks” to the ghost of Pa Kent.
Pa: I remember one season, the water came bad. I couldn’t have been 12. Dad had out the shovels and we went at it all night. We worked till I think I fainted. But we managed to stop the water. We saved the farm. Your grandma baked me a cake. Said I was a hero. Later that day, we found out we blocked the water, alright. We sent it upstream. The whole Lang farm washed away. While I ate my hero cake, their horses were drowning. I used to hear them wailing in my sleep. [Clark visibly grimaces, remembering his own ghosts]
Clark: Did the nightmares ever stop.
Pa: Yeah. When I met your mother. She gave me faith that there’s good in this world. She was my world.
So. We see that the HUGE IDEA of Superman is about gods, power, morality, responsibility, etc.. Very lofty and existential concepts. Which is why Clark eventually rejects Pa’s vision of Superman. Is Superman what a single farmer from Kansas thinks? Or what governments think? Nations? Philosophers? How can Superman be so simple? In a sense, Clark’s minimizing the importance of his own father. That’s because, at the moment, everything seems so much more intense and immense. It makes his father’s conception of Superman feel naive.
Getting so caught up, Clark stops seeing the humanity in Superman and becomes more like Bruce and Lex. But the conversation with his father reminds him that it’s not about the personal failings and mistakes. It’s about other people. It’s about being there for the ones you love. About doing what you can because you can. Lois believes Superman means hope. She believes in him, as a person. Not as a figure.
The dream of a farmer from Kansas is valid. Because it’s personal and human. Because it comes from a place of love. Which ties back to Batman v Superman as a statement about the United States. Should government be dictated by the rich and connected, like Lex Luthor? Or by regular folk like Jonathan and Martha Kent?
This leads directly to the fight between Superman and Batman. Clark and Bruce. A figure of hope versus one of fear. A child brought up on love versus one stained by anguish. At one point Batman says: “Breathe it in. That’s fear. You’re not brave. Men are brave.” What he means is that because Superman is so powerful, he doesn’t actually fear anything. So what’s it matter if he goes into a burning building? Or saves people from a flood? Whereas humans aren’t powerful. They’re vulnerable. Filled with fear. So when they step up, knowing the potential risk, that’s bravery. Overall, it’s part of Bruce’s view of Superman as a dehumanized figure. As a threat that needs eliminated.
Of note is that the fight ends with Batman dropping Superman several stories. Which ties back to the motif of falling. Now that Superman has fallen, he should be, like Bruce and Lex, like America, broken. It’s at this point Bruce grabs the Kryptonite spear and slashes Clark’s cheek. Blood runs. Which proves Superman isn’t a god. Initially, that’s a victory for Bruce. “Look what I did to the vaunted Superman! I win!” But it also means that if Bruce goes through with it, if he kills Superman, he’s killing, not a god, but a person. Who isn’t an actual villain. Even Alfred said, earlier in the movie, “But he is not our enemy.” And Bruce recognized that when he said “Not today.”
So Bruce is on the brink of becoming more like the killer of his parents than like his parents. But he tries to tell himself otherwise, by telling Clark “You were never even a man.” But then Clark says “You’re letting him kill Martha.” Which is a great idea but an insanely dumb choice of words. Just have him say “Martha.” Then Lois comes in and explains like she does anyway. Regardless, in mentioning Martha, Clark suddenly humanizes himself. He’s no longer some all-powerful, dangerous figure to be put down. He’s a boy with a mom who needs saving. And isn’t that why Bruce became Batman to begin with? To make sure what happened to him never happened to anyone else?
Suddenly, Bruce snaps out of it. And his moral compass returns. He’s no longer acting out of fear and vengeance. But is, like Superman, inspired. In that way, Superman redeems Batman. Bruce was, for so long, fallen. And this period was his lowest point. Having the chance to save Martha becomes a form of redemption and renewal.
That brings us back to the dream that opens the movie. How did it end? With the bats lifting Bruce into the light. Which he called a beautiful lie. Here is Superman essentially bringing light back into Bruce’s world. Serving as that symbol of hope that can make others better, can make the world better.
Since Bruce’s character arc is the centerpiece of the film, this turn toward hope is, ultimately, what the movie wished to convey. The real world process is a lot different than Bruce’s journey. We don’t have a Superman. We can, however, recognize when fear rules us and when we’re letting the fall define us. Instead, we need to find reasons and ways to come back to the light. Clark’s reasons are his parents and Lois. For Bruce, it’s to protect others. For the rest of us, our reasons will vary. The important thing is to realize they exist.
Then you have Lex as the negative example. The person who never figures it out. Who lets their trauma consume them fully. He’s what people and nations should avoid becoming.
Jesus?
There is some pointed Jesus-related imagery. Like when the nuke goes off and we see Clark floating in space. He has his arms out, in a T-pose. The sun then restores him and he goes from seemingly dead to very much alive.
And then after he dies, following the defeat of Doomsday, we see telephone poles in the background that immediately recall crosses. If that isn’t enough, a single beam of light, a god ray, lands on Superman.
How people feel about this connection will vary. Some will think it’s appropriate. Others will hate it. For me, the thing that’s interesting is how it ties back the earlier conversation about things that have fallen. The climax of Jesus’s story was two-fold: that his death wiped clean the sins of everyone else; and the resurrection.
The final shot of the film shows dirt on the casket rattle. It’s a pretty clear sign Superman will come back to life. Something we know happens in Justice League. So if one of those things, the resurrection, is already present, is the other one?
In the 1 v 1 fight with Batman, Superman saves Bruce from becoming evil. Bruce comes back to the light. And is inspired, at the end, to do better. He says to Diana, at the funeral, “I’ve failed him in life. I won’t fail him in death.” He then says, “[Humanity] can do better. We will. We have to.” That’s the hope Bruce has now. Which spreads to Diana, who initially says “100 years ago, I walked away from mankind” because “man made a world where standing together is impossible. We fight. We kill. We betray one another.” But she comes around. And because Batman is a parallel for the country, we can expect America to do the same. Instead of working with people like Lex, they’ll take a better path.
So the Jesus connection is part of the whole story showing how the fallen rise again. Something, or someone, gives them hope. It’s arguably a bit too heavy-handed, but it’s at least in-service to the film’s primary thematic concern.
What is the oldest lie in America?
Lex says that the oldest lie in America is that power can be innocent. Which ties back to his theory about the relationship between power and goodness. If someone, like God, is all-powerful, then they can’t be all good. And vice-versa. Which is why we get the sword of Alexander the Great scene. Alexander is someone who gained immense power through violence.
We actually have a counterpoint, though. Alfred has that line about powerlessness turning good men cruel. So you have one position that states power creates evil. Another that believes powerlessness leads to evil. Who is right, who is wrong?
Part of Clark’s journey is learning to be better. In the fight with Zod, he was careless when it came to the loss of life. His lack of responsibility led to a lot of devastation. When it comes time to fight Doomsday, he avoids the same mistake and limits the loss of innocents.
Ultimately, Clark sacrifices himself to defeat Doomsday. Not because he’s some god-figure, but because he wanted to protect the people he cared about most. He uses his power in a way to save Lois, his mom, his friends at The Daily Planet, etc. And there’s an innocence there, a purity.
So Alfred wins. It’s not power that makes someone bad. And good people aren’t infallible. Ideally, good people who have power try their best and learn from their mistakes. That can make all the difference.
Why was Batman branding the inmates?
The nuance of this might get overlooked. Batman was branding bad guys to send a message. But it was Lex who then paid other inmates to murder anyone with the brand. It was part of his plot to draw Batman and Superman into conflict so that they could destroy one another.
Is that why Superman was mad at Batman?
Superman believes in justice. So when he hears about this shadowy figure who is judge, jury, and executioner, it feels wrong to him. But that’s almost entirely because of how Lex framed the situation. Clark also had very limited knowledge about Gotham and Batman’s work in Gotham over the years.
Why does Superman turn evil in the future?
The brief appearance of Flash tells us that Lois Lane is the key. In the future Bruce sees, Lois has died. This connects to Pa Kent’s speech about how Martha is what reminded him there was good in the world. Lois does the same thing for Clark. She is his world, the thing that gives him the hope and strength to be good. With her gone, he turns bad.
Which is kind of what we see happening with Bruce. Bruce’s lack of a serious romantic partner is always a bit of a joke in various incarnations of the character. But in BvS, there’s a serious distinction made between those who have someone and those who don’t. Bruce doesn’t have anyone who brings light into his life. So his life has been consumed by shadow. He’s stayed good for years, but we’re finally seeing the cracks in his morality. He’s turning more and more into an evil version of himself.
Coming to his senses, Bruce doesn’t run out and get a romantic partner. But he does open up his life by trying to create a team, starting with Diana. Even something as small as that is enough to change the course of his future.
Who did Lex Luthor mean at the end?
Darkseid. We briefly see Steppenwolf after the defeat of Doomsday. Steppenwolf is the primary antagonist in Justice League but is working on behalf of Darkseid.
What does “Dawn of Justice” mean?
It’s the beginning of the Justice League.
Why did people believe Superman slaughtered people in Africa?
It was all part of Lex’s plot. He was supplying the African warlord with soldiers and weapons. He could then influence the warlord to do the interview with Lois Lane. It’s likely he knew the photographer would be CIA and that’s why Anatoli knew to look for the bug. The whole point was to create a conflict that would draw Superman to protect Lois. So Anatoli and his men open fire. Then use the flamethrower to make it look like Superman laser-eyed a bunch of people. Lex’s men flee before Clark arrives.
So the villagers saw Superman. Then they see a bunch of charred bodies. So they put two and two together and think Superman did it. Lex also paid Kahina Ziri to act as a witness from Nairomi who could confirm for the U.S. government that Superman did indeed char those men. It’s possible he paid others in the village to say similar things.
But, overall, the torched bodies and false statements were the things that convinced people. And there were definitely people afraid he would do something like that. They wanted to believe the lie so did.
Is the Ultimate Edition better than the theatrical version?
In pretty much every conceivable way. The 31-minutes makes a huge difference. They’re absolutely necessary scenes that explain character motivations and logic. I truly believe that the theatrical version is a failed, horrendous movie. And that the Ultimate Edition is legitimately one of the best superhero movies ever made. The Ultimate Edition isn’t perfect but has the depth of literature. The theatrical is like watching a horse with no legs try to pull a wagon on the Oregon Trail.
